After watching my first full Democratic debate last night, I have a couple of thoughts:
Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee and probably the next president. As Jeffrey Toobin of CNN quipped last night, this debate was "Gladys Knight and the Pips." She was confident (perhaps a little too much at times), nuanced, moderate (with an eye toward the general election) and dare I say: presidential.
Obama did OK but this clearly is not a format that serves his conversational style well. Edwards is sinking--hey, did I mention my wife is Elizabeth? Biden strikes me as the grown-up in the room on foreign policy--even if he's like the uncle at the family reunion, ready to tell you what he really thinks after the third glass of wine. Dodd fades into the background. Gravel is angry. Kucinich is Kucinich. But then there's Bill Richardson...
He had his moments, but let me stick to one issue: his six-month plan of getting out of Iraq, which is distinguished by the fact that it's, uh, different from "the Senators." Otherwise it seems to lack the compassion and common sense of a gradualist approach. An immediate withdrawal would create a humanitarian crisis and possible genocide. Richardson's lame "it's already a civil war" argumentation ignores the degree of stabilization provided by the presence of our troops. It's a matter of degree, Governor! Besides, if Senator Biden is to be believed, it's an impossible timetable that betrays a lack of understanding of how the military actually operates.
As I watched, the thought of Bill Richardson as my commander-in-chief made me a bit uneasy. He did not come off well in his exchanges with Biden, who appeared much more knowledgable on these matters. I've heard a lot about Richardson's resume, but a paper tiger can't survive long in the wild...
Expat, here's another chance to make your case: what am I missing?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Comments
If that's the case...
If Hillary really does end up being the nominee, then the Democrats are basically ensuring that the White House will stay in Republican hands. The nominee from both parties needs to be someone who can pull votes from the moderate wing of the other side. Hillary Clinton cannot do that. No candidate does more to galvanize the other side that she does.
As for the rest of your analysis, I tend to agree - especially on Edwards and Richardson.
*))
((*
*))
((*
Think snow.
As a (D), that's all upside
The Clintons drive the GOP bananas, and their conniption fits turn off voters. The galvanization (read: negative campaigning) of the GOP plays to the Clintonian message.
AB: Unless something
AB: Unless something dramatically improves in Iraq, I can't see any scenario in which a Republican can win next year. None. This election is going to be a strong repudiation of the Bush foreign policy. And short of Ron Paul, who has zero chance, none of the Republicans have distanced themselves enough from the Bush doctrine.
Hillary's unfavorable ratings
I really think the only way a Republican wins is for Hillary to get the nomination. She has a popularity number that she can never rise above, no matter what. She is that polarizing. More than 50% of voters just don't like her and never will. I think this applies to women, also, she may appeal to liberal-leaning women in NY and CA, but I don't think she plays well elsewhere.
'Moderate wing' of the other side...
The 'moderate wing of the other side' made me pause, for a number of reasons. In this day and age we have become more and more polarized, so to say Clinton needs votes from the 'moderate wing of the other side' is to seemingly point to a dwindling pool of votes as 'necessary' for election. With changes in districting and demographics, and since we do not elect our president based on the popular vote, there are very few real swing states left. Moderates in swing states surely matter, but the 'moderate wing' of a given party may not.
And the notion that moderate voters "belong" to one party or another is foreign to me. There may be moderates within each political party (even if their numbers are dwindling), but there are a fair number of people who stake out the middle ground and vote for either party election by election. These people do not always share the political concerns that are raised within a given party, one of the very reasons why men like Karl Rove are paid handsomely to convince these voters that their best interests lie with a particular party in that election. Thus, while Clinton could conceivably revile 'republican moderates', she may appeal to political moderates without party affiliation. If she can win those votes, she does not need votes from 'the moderate wing of the other party'.
And for what its worth, I think Will is spot on with what matters most with voters in the coming election.
r.johnson
6 months isn't reckless
It is late, but I promise to come back to this tomorrow. 6 months isn't reckless or logistically unfeasible. It would require a massive build up of materiel in Kuwait and Qatar, but the soldiers could come home.
Although Biden came at forcefully, he didn't explain his plan at all. He plans to paternalistic break up Iraq into three semi-autonomous countries, even though it has little support in Iraq. His plan virtually ensures continued civil war as Kurds and Sunnis fight over Kirkuk, Sunnis fight with Shia over oil in the South. His plan is a disaster.
One thing that Richardson didn't articulate is that he wants a Muslim peacekeeping force to fill some of the security role that America is currently doing. Therefore, he wouldn't be leaving a complete security vacuum.
Like I said, I'll be back tomorrow to fully flesh out my argument. For now, let me leave you with the most influential paper in the first caucus state:
OK, But...
Expat,
You make a good point, I believe, about how both Biden and Richardson were not able to flesh out in detail their visions for getting out of Iraq. Certainly the format of the debate itself hindered a more thorough response. But I think Biden raised questions that I'd like to see Richardson answer: is there any current high-ranking personnel in our Armed Forces who believes Richardson's plan is not only feasible but wise? Is there any broader consensus on the issue? And does Richardson see any irony in his Sudan and Iraq positions?
In response to the debate assessment you quoted, I think it may be true that Dodd, Richardson and Biden had their moments, and personally I believe Biden has a lot of substance on foreign policy in particular, but I don't think any of the three will shake up the polls. Richardson strikes me as the Wes Clark of this election: interesting candidate in the abstract, not cutting it in reality.
Encyclopedia Brown
"Is there any current
"Is there any current high-ranking personnel in our Armed Forces who believes Richardson's plan is not only feasible but wise?"
Based on the huge early success of the surge, I doubt it. Sunnis continue to turn against the Iranian Shiite invaders, major tribes continue to openly renounce Al Qaeda, and we continue to capture or kill more and more terrorists. Dean Barnett's summation of the situation is this:
"SO WHAT’S THE STATE OF PLAY right now? The surge is showing results. It’s impossible to get a report from Iraq that says otherwise. That doesn’t mean that the road from here to a peaceful, responsible Iraq will be an easy one. But it is literally impossible to find a military person who thinks David Petraeus is doing a poor job. He has earned credibility throughout his career, and he has continued to earn it the last several months. Meanwhile, the left is turning on both Petraeus and the troops he leads."
So, why commit to defeat in six, or twelve, or eighteen months when we've turned the tide and are winning? Ask the generals on the ground, and see what they think of that idea.
Huge early success of the surge? Really?
Michael,
On what do you assert that the surge is a huge success? Is it that because the average number of daily attacks in Iraq hit a new high in June? Attack statistics obtained by Reuters from the Defense Department showed a June average of 177.8 attacks per day on coalition and Iraqi forces, civilians and infrastructure.
Or maybe it is because we only have like 135 foreign detainees out of 19,000 suspected insurgents in their custody? The vast majority are angry Sunnis who don't want American troops on their soil.
The surge hasn't been a huge success by any assessment. The sooner we get out, the sooner the fighting will die out. Don't listen to my assertion. Listen to Sandy Berger and the Brookings Institute.
Still Waiting
The surge debate is a good one, but I'm interested in hearing any military officials who support the Richardson pullout plan or who even believe it's possible. Expat, why is Biden wrong about the logistics? Regardless of whether Biden's own plan is a good one, why exactly is his statement wrong that no high-ranking officer in that room the other night would find Richardson's plan feasible?
Otherwise, we're in near-immediate pullout territory with Kucinich, which rarely addresses the logistics, human rights implications, and geopolitical calculations that a president (as opposed to an activist) actually has to consider.
Encyclopedia Brown
Feasibility? or Clear Goal Setting?
Ok, I've put in an e-mail to my one contact on the campaign and he didn't know of any military officers who have publicly endorsed the plan, but does know that the Governor has had several meetings with current and former high-ranking military officers and they endorse his plan, but not necessarily the specifics.
And that is what you find on the Richardson website:"Overwhelming majorities of Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni, oppose the presence of US troops in Iraq and believe that US troops are more a cause of violence than a solution to it. Our presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency, strengthens Al Qaeda, and distracts us from the urgent task of defeating the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. It's time for a phased and coordinated, but rapid, withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, and Governor Richardson has a realistic plan to do it." - Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, Ret.)
Is that a concern? I don't think so.
You seem focused on whether it's plausible to get troops out in six months or whether it will take somewhat longer, that misses the forest for the trees. The point is to get them out as fast as possible with no Americans left behind as a target. If it takes longer than six months, then so be it. It wouldn't be the first time a goal has been missed in this war. But at least the six-month goal is just that--a goal to be worked towards.
And Richardson is the only candidate on either side with clear goals in this war.
HRC was the winner
She's separating herself from the pack. Richardson's Iraq plan is PERFECT and spot on, but it won't matter, because Hilary is too far ahead for anyone to catch except Obama, but he is losing ground right now and it may get to be too much. There is more than enough support out there for HRC to win the nomination and the general election. IF the GOP had a truly strong challenger, that might not be so. But for whatever small portion of the population out there 'hates' her so much that they'll never vote for her, it is more than compensated by the numbers of women who will vote for her simply because she is the first woman with a legit chance AND the reality that the most popular Democrat in the last 40 years will be plugging for her all the way. Clinton will have no problem carrying every state that went for Gore and Kerry the last two times and that alone gets you 254 votes. Between the many other swing states that either Kerry or Gore carried (but the other didn't) and the ones that were very close before and easily can be moved due to the combination of GOP backlash over Iraq, pro-woman votes, the Return of Bill, and the lack of a strong GOP choice makes this very winnable for HIlary.
Frankly I'm a bit disappointed that the discussion here is entirely about the candidates with nothing about the format - which I thought was very interesting.
Democratic presidential candidates
Information on the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates can be found at: Democratic Presidential Candidates
For more information on the 2008 presidential elections, please visit Project Vote Smart or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.
Post new comment